2006-11-27 08:01:34 · 7 answers · asked by melanie b 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Even though the prosecution in its case in chief can not use evidence illegally seized to convict the defendant, the evidence may be used to impeach the credibility of the testimony given on direct or cross examination. U.S. v. Havens, 446 U.S. 620 (1980). However, the evidence can be used to impeach defendant's testimony, not one of defendant's witnessess.
The exclusionary rule (rule excluding illegally obtained evidence) only applies in criminal proceedings.
2006-11-27 08:09:39 · answer #1 · answered by Tara P 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't understand the question. Are you asking if the use of illegally obtained evidence could be used? If so, I'm sure it could be laundered through the media to look like a leak - and its origin would then be moot.
2006-11-27 08:05:21 · answer #2 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its illegal to use evidence obtained illegally. Why would you want to create such a precedence? Would you want the police or courts to do that to you? Do you want to open all those doors and allow that into our legal system? There is no reason or excuse that would make that right, no subterfuge to make it acceptable.
2006-11-27 08:11:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. the archives is legally available if the rightful proprietor surrenders it. contained in the case the monetary company and Walmart. that's referred to as robbery and Rubber assessments exceeded to Walmart are Walmarts and the monetary company who would were defrauded. Get it! She might want to do the time
2016-11-29 20:39:29 · answer #4 · answered by sobczak 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What is Blackmail?
2006-11-27 08:10:29 · answer #5 · answered by sergeant151 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
what comes around should go around I guess.
2006-11-27 08:26:49 · answer #6 · answered by eg_ansel 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that's not a question or complete thought.
2006-11-27 08:03:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋